Notably, Soundview owes at least $2 million to innocentcreditors, such as medical supply companies, and approximately $1million to the Internal Revenue Service in payroll taxes.However, no such creditors received any of the $600,000.A further explanation of the circumstances surroundingseveral of the above-mentioned payments are set forth below.1.$104,000 Check to SMESME was the defendant’s private janitorial company thatSoundview paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean itsfacilities from 2008 to 2010 and from which the defendantprofited handsomely. At trial, the government presented evidencedemonstrating that SME charged Soundview well over $100,000 morethan it cost SME to clean Soundview’s facilities and pay itsemployees. Notably, SME’s last contract with Soundview ended in2010. Thus, SME has had no business with Soundview forapproximately two years.After Soundview issued the $104,000 check to SME onJune 29, 2012, the defendant took several steps to convert it tocash. First, on July 5, 2012, the defendant withdrew $50,000 incash from SME’s account. Second, on the same day, the defendantused $45,000 from SME’s bank account to purchase a cashier’scheck made out to his wife. Third, the next day, the defendant’swife deposited the cashier’s check into her own bank account andwithdrew the same amount in cash.These transactions appear to be designed to accomplishseveral illicit goals. First, the transactions show that thedefendant is seeking to defeat any future forfeiture andrestitution orders by preventing the government from attachingassets in a known bank account.
Second, the transactions appear designed to hide thedefendant’s assets from the Court, Pretrial Services and theDepartment of Probation, so that these entities are preventedfrom having an accurate picture of the defendant’s finances.Notably, on July 9, 2012 – within days of these transactions –the defendant’s CJA-appointed counsel in the Southern District ofNew York reported, during a status conference before the Hon.William H. Pauley, the U.S. District Judge overseeing thedefendant’s criminal case in that district, that the defendantAt present, records show that the defendant has no more
than a few thousand dollars maintained in any single bankaccount.2